Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Update On HB 402‏

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454

    Update On HB 402‏

    HOUSE COMMITTEE COULD HEAR HB 402, NEW YORK-STYLE GUN & MAGAZINE BAN, THIS COMING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21!

    If you care about your right to own firearms and ammunition in New Mexico you MUST plan to attend this hearing and contact lawmakers in opposition to this terrible bill.

    HB 402 by state Representative Stephen Easley (D-Eldorado), bans the future possession, transfer and transport of so-called “assault weapons” or “large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices.” All such property owned in New Mexico prior to July 1, 2013 would be grandfathered, but the burden of proving ownership prior to that date is placed on the owner. Proving the date of purchase can be almost impossible and serial numbers do not exist on many magazines.

    Ownership of the affected firearms and magazines could not be transferred AT ALL. The only means of disposing of them would be through a gun “buyback” or turn-in program to law enforcement – no inheritance, no allowing a friend or relative to take custody of the prohibited property, no selling or transferring the property out-of-state or even to a federally-licensed dealer. Grandfathered owners of the firearms described below would be required to store them in a locked gun safe at all times except when the guns are being transported or used. Transport would only be lawful if the firearm is unloaded, any detachable magazine is removed and the gun is equipped with a triggerlock.

    The definition of “assault weapon” in HB 402 is an unmitigated disaster. It doesn’t list specifically-banned models and instead imposes a “one-feature test” for rifles, shotguns and pistols, as well as a catch-all for “a semi-automatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm.” A banned feature for both semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and semi-automatic shotguns would be a “secondhand grip” OR a “protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.” Of course, ALL rifles and shotguns feature some sort of secondary gripping surface, as by definition they are designed or made to be fired from the shoulder and gripped with two hands. So HB 402 could essentially ban ALL semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and ALL semi-automatic shotguns, unless they fit into one of the very narrow exemptions in this bill.

    HB 402 also bans ammunition feeding devices with a capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition or that contain more than seven rounds of ammunition. This is just one example of how poorly-drafted this bill is in a rush to follow New York’s lead (where gun control advocates sought to reduce the existing ten round state limit.) Additionally, HB 402 includes prohibitions on items specifically excluded in even the most far-reaching bans we’ve seen to-date: full ten-round magazines routinely used for competition and feeding devices that are curios or relics!

    This is one of the worst gun control bills filed in the entire country. You can read the proposed measure yourself at http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session....No=402&year=13

    It is expected that the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on HB 402 on Thursday, February 21, at 1:30pm or upon adjournment of the House in Room 315 of the State Capitol. You will want to confirm that it’s on the committee agenda come Tuesday or Wednesday by visiting http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/agecalendars.aspx. Make plans to attend this hearing and voice your opposition to HB 402. If the measure advances from this committee, it will move onto the House Judiciary Committee. Please also call and email committee members and urge them to oppose HB 402 (see listing below for committee member contact information.)

    Recommendations for testimony/constituent contact:

    • Keep your comments under one minute and try not to repeat previous points made.

    • Be respectful and polite when communicating with lawmakers. Lists of committee members can be found here http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/committees_standing.aspx

    • Speak to the bill and issue at hand, not a general constitutional argument. For talking points against so-called “assault weapons” bans and limits on magazines, visit http://www.gunbanfacts.com/

  2. #2
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    Checked the upcoming calendar this past Friday and saw nothing so I called a friend there and they heard nothing either by Saturday. I hope you're right about the date because lots of us will be checking and trying to schedule work time off and travel time.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    That message was forwarded with permission. I'll be watching as closely as I can and will pass on any word I receive as soon as I am able.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348
    Hey guys try this website out it will allow you to email everyone about HB 402

    http://netwmd.com/guns/
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    1

    Hb402 / 2012 unconstitutioninal!!!! (state constitution!)

    (abridged and emphasis mine!)

    CONSTITUTION
    OF THE
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    ADOPTED JANUARY 21,
    1911


    Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
    to keep and bear arms for security and
    defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
    use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
    herein shall be held to permit the carrying
    of concealed weapons. No municipality
    or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
    of the right to keep and bear arms.
    (As
    amended November 2, 1971 and November
    2, 1986.)

    This law is clearly in violation of the State Constitution!

    -Wasteland Man.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by WastelandMan View Post
    (abridged and emphasis mine!)

    CONSTITUTION
    OF THE
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    ADOPTED JANUARY 21,
    1911


    Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
    to keep and bear arms for security and
    defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
    use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
    herein shall be held to permit the carrying
    of concealed weapons. No municipality
    or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
    of the right to keep and bear arms.
    (As
    amended November 2, 1971 and November
    2, 1986.)

    This law is clearly in violation of the State Constitution!

    -Wasteland Man.
    Cannot imagive how you think the NM Constitution can violate the NM Constitution - that is the preemptive clause from the State Consitution (As amended November 2, 1971 and November2, 1986.).

    Article II, sec. 6:
    New Mexico has state preemption of firearms laws, so local governments may not restrict the possession or use of firearms. In 1986, Article 2, Section 6 of the state constitution was amended to say, "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms"

    http://sos.state.nm.us/pdf/2007nmconst.pdf
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Grapeshot- he simply highlighted the wrong part. The first part is where the violations occur with this proposed law- abridging the right to keep arms, period. And he is right about it being unconstitutional, absolutely.

    That is the part that annoys me the most- if the legal team allows this to even get to committee it is a travesty.

  8. #8
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueAussie View Post
    Hey guys try this website out it will allow you to email everyone about HB 402

    http://netwmd.com/guns/
    Thanks for the link!!! Is there anything other than this website that will notify us when 402 gets scheduled? Any other websites that track this and other bills? My NRA mailings are slow and lacking - I think because they are inundated with countrywide agendas.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by XDm View Post
    Thanks for the link!!! Is there anything other than this website that will notify us when 402 gets scheduled? Any other websites that track this and other bills? My NRA mailings are slow and lacking - I think because they are inundated with countrywide agendas.
    not as far as I know But I will see what I can find
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  10. #10
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    Looks like this bill is a GO for this Thursday. 1:30PM RM 317

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    It's an embarrassment that it's even getting this far in its current written form.

    I also don't see an impact report accompanying it yet, which indicates legal and fiscal areas of concern by the reviewers.

  12. #12
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    weather looks sketchy in places Thursday but I'll see you guys up there anyway.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    20
    I'd like to be there but I'm shorthanded at the office... I've been sending emails everyday to both committees to oppose this bill.

    donovan

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348
    HB 402 - vote 3-2 tabled.

    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    20
    Thanks for the update! Do you remember how the vote went? I'm sure that Chasey voted in favor of it, who else voted in favor?

    donovan

    by the way when did the hearing finally start?

  16. #16
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    Chasey(D) and Roybal-Caballero(D) voted no to tabling it. Alcon(D)/Anderson(R)/Harper(R) voted yes to tabling it.

    I think something the public should be aware of and won't make the news coverage about tonight's meeting is that Gail Chasey and Patrica Roybal-Caballero admitted tonight that they deleted many many emails without reading them. Excuses about capacity issues and too much repetitive "scripted" comments were being seen early on so the two Democrats said they deleted / WITHOUT READING many public emails.
    Remember this at election time.

  17. #17
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    and the hearing didn't start until just after 6pm.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by XDm View Post
    Chasey(D) and Roybal-Caballero(D) voted no to tabling it. Alcon(D)/Anderson(R)/Harper(R) voted yes to tabling it.

    I think something the public should be aware of and won't make the news coverage about tonight's meeting is that Gail Chasey and Patrica Roybal-Caballero admitted tonight that they deleted many many emails without reading them. Excuses about capacity issues and too much repetitive "scripted" comments were being seen early on so the two Democrats said they deleted / WITHOUT READING many public emails.
    Remember this at election time.
    Now why does this not surprise me one little bit
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    XDm- thanks for the info. I appreciate knowing that- it's deplorable. Next time all emails will contain "no scripted comments, please read" in the subject header. What a bunch of clowns we have running the circus.

    I waited for three hours and finally had to leave as my schedule was only so flexible.

    They finally released the fiscal impact report yesterday. What I cannot understand is how a bill with so many problems as pointed out by the legal analysis can even make it to a hearing. They all but said the author was a moron, and this goes to show he really is.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    santa fe
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by AH.74 View Post
    XDm- thanks for the info. I appreciate knowing that- it's deplorable. Next time all emails will contain "no scripted comments, please read" in the subject header. What a bunch of clowns we have running the circus.

    I waited for three hours and finally had to leave as my schedule was only so flexible.

    They finally released the fiscal impact report yesterday. What I cannot understand is how a bill with so many problems as pointed out by the legal analysis can even make it to a hearing. They all but said the author was a moron, and this goes to show he really is.
    I hope he feels like one too...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    20
    Regarding morons, Rep Easley is the same person who introduced HB578 which would ban carrying open or concealed for anyone except the governor and security.

    Rouge Aussie, regarding emails and deleting them without reading or responding not to mention accountability is why I take issue and do not understand why they as public servants are not required to use the nmlegis.gov email address... By using their own personal address it prevents any inspection of public records on the type and amount of emails they would have received regarding an issue such as this. The left made such an issue with Gov Martinez and her use of private email accounts; what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

    donovan

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Donovan- good point about the personal emails. Most of them do use the nm.leg addresses, but some also don't. I agree that it's inappropriate not to.

    As far as HB 578, believe me I was pretty ticked off about that. The guy is a real piece of work. I sent my second email to him today reminding him that I will be actively working to remove him from office when the time comes, and I will do what I can to that end.

    But so far there has been no action on 578, yet. Hopefully there won't be. It's not as if they don't have better uses for their time...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by XDm View Post
    and the hearing didn't start until just after 6pm.
    XDm- how many people would you say were still in attendance after such a delay?

  24. #24
    Regular Member XDm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    65
    the majority of the opponents against the bill were still there - I couldn't tell which if any were missing but I saw more Sheriffs at 3pm than when we started after 6pm. It was confusing because it was military/veteran day at the capitol so some of the law enforcement present when I got there at noon may have been there for the veterans gathering.

    The proponent side lost 2 of their biggest spokespersons and somebody said it was the MoveOn.org(?) representative and one of the clergy that spoke last time for HB_77. They had traveled some distance to speak and had to hit the road for various reasons. We filled a committee room to capacity. There was less than a dozen in favor of 402 and the remainder of the room against it.

    Of concern to me was a comment from somebody in line (against HB402) that told me they showed up earlier in the week for another bill that had a massive turnout against some other agenda (non-gun related). Their bill was scheduled 3rd that day and the House moved them to the end of the agenda in order to thin out the crowd.. sound familiar? Apparently that hearing didn't end until 10:45 that night and many against the bill had already left by 6pm. I spoke with an employee that works there (she asked that her name not be used) but she said this is a common tactic with "large crowd" bills.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    I suspected that tactic might be put into play, and I think it's absolute BS. Completely dishonest and they can't even pretend to be transparent about it- shameful that they do it as a matter of fact.

    I appreciate the info, and your time and effort. You're doing a lot of good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •